Watching some old Indy car videos and it got me thinking f1 is trying so so hard to conquer America. What better way than to bring f1 to a oval.What oval would you like too see as a formula 1 race if we had the chance too see it.For me. We did well at Indy when we ran the road course. But we have burned the bridges with Indy plus I don't see f1 surpassing the Indy car there.Daytona and Talladega would be out as the g force would be too much. And 1 mile ovals are too short.My pick would be a June date after the Canadian grand prix. And I'd say engine restriction rules are exempt for this race. (3 engines for 2018 as it is now. But an extra set of engines for this race only) and I would make it a double points race for this race only as well. And give the teams double the amount of tyres they have now for a weekend. Why??? My proposal would be to re establish. the us 500 at Michigan. All 250 laps of it. I would love too see how formula 1 goes around a oval. And I feel that this will also interest the us viewers to make this race a future classic.

Any other suggestions on what oval would suit formula 1. And if it would be feasable and if it would peak the interest of a casual formula 1 fan.

It would need to be the biggest and most gently banked oval you could find, and even then you'd need special tyres and a special aero kit for it.

Really, the only choice is IMS: not only is it the largest, but nowhere else would get F1 the sort of attention and respect from American fans you mention in your post. As for the speed, if the teams were allowed to design special oval packages for the cars I'm pretty sure they would be faster than Indy cars. I don't know how many of them would last 500 miles, though!

This would probably end up as shades of the 2005 US Grand Prix where all but six of the cars pulled into the pits at the end of the formation lap and refused to race. The culprit in that case was tires that would not handle one of the turns on the Indy oval. Running turn one backwards was causing tire failures. Running a full race distance on all four corners of the oval would lead to any number of unanticipated failures, and probably significant injuries on cars that aren't designed for that style of racing.

As to Michigan, the Champ Cars ran at around 235 MPH around there in oval trim. The F1 cars would also need to have their wings and aero packages massively redesigned to keep the downforce and speeds down.

I would think that most US F1 fans would balk at attending a F1 race in the US at an oval.

Indycar does ovals, NASCAR does ovals, what can Formula One do on any oval that would separate itself from those two series? IMO for most US viewers, there is very little distinction between Indycar and Formula One.

So for Formula One to be distinct and draw in a crowd, what can they do that pulls in fans? It must be very different than what Indycar does, and it must make a big splash. Let me know when you can figure that out. And no, just because it's labelled "Formula One", that doesn't have much market appeal.

Technically, Formula One cars are not designed for or suited to ovals. There are such issues as sustained full throttle and crashworthness would require basically a brand new design and car.

But if an oval track is to be selected, I cast my vote for Bristol. Not a huge oval, but a bullring.

Indycar does ovals, NASCAR does ovals, what can Formula One do on any oval that would separate itself from those two series? IMO for most US viewers, there is very little distinction between Indycar and Formula One.

So for Formula One to be distinct and draw in a crowd, what can they do that pulls in fans? It must be very different than what Indycar does, and it must make a big splash. Let me know when you can figure that out. And no, just because it's labelled "Formula One", that doesn't have much market appeal.

Formula 1 can go faster than the others. If it doesn't, it's failed at its fundamental goal.

But to make an F1 car go faster at an oval than an Indy car would require, as many people have pointed out, a highly specific aerodynamic and mechanical solution that would cost a huge amount for just one race.

Indycar does ovals, NASCAR does ovals, what can Formula One do on any oval that would separate itself from those two series? IMO for most US viewers, there is very little distinction between Indycar and Formula One.

So for Formula One to be distinct and draw in a crowd, what can they do that pulls in fans? It must be very different than what Indycar does, and it must make a big splash. Let me know when you can figure that out. And no, just because it's labelled "Formula One", that doesn't have much market appeal.

Formula 1 can go faster than the others. If it doesn't, it's failed at its fundamental goal.

But to make an F1 car go faster at an oval than an Indy car would require, as many people have pointed out, a highly specific aerodynamic and mechanical solution that would cost a huge amount for just one race.

Faster? That is a function of acceleration, braking, and cornering. At what is basically a constant speed race, acceleration and braking are nullified. In fact I suspect the DW12 possess more torque at that speed range. Cornering comes down to mechanical grip and aerodynamics. Although the DW12 may not have the sophisticated aero of a Formula One car, it's larger diffuser and the ability to select a wing package pretty well nullifies that advantage too.

The DW12 is a fast car, please do not assume that just because "It is not Formula One" that it is significantly lesser.

Formula One has not failed at it's "goal" because it still can accelerate, brake, and corner quicker than anything on a road course. But this is not a road course.

Faster? That is a function of acceleration, braking, and cornering. At what is basically a constant speed race, acceleration and braking are nullified. In fact I suspect the DW12 possess more torque at that speed range. Cornering comes down to mechanical grip and aerodynamics. Although the DW12 may not have the sophisticated aero of a Formula One car, it's larger diffuser and the ability to select a wing package pretty well nullifies that advantage too.

The DW12 is a fast car, please do not assume that just because "It is not Formula One" that it is significantly lesser.

Formula One has not failed at it's "goal" because it still can accelerate, brake, and corner quicker than anything on a road course. But this is not a road course.

Hence why they would need a highly specific aero kit for the ovals.

I understand the differences of oval racing, and I'm not implying the current Indy car is slow. But Formula 1 is all about being the fastest open wheeled racing in the world; that is the point of F1. They don't race on ovals, so it doesn't matter if they're quick on them. But if F1 raced on ovals, they would need to be demonstrably quicker than Indy cars, or they would lose face. If F1 raced on an oval and was slower (or even just not faster) than anything else, it would have failed, pure and simple.

I don't think that Indy fans should be offended by that statement, honestly. An Indy car costs about 1/100 what a top F1 machine does, it runs a manufacturer supplied aero kit, it has a less powerful engine, no electric assist to the turbo - the list goes on. It's a perfectly good racing car, but an F1 car needs to be faster than anything else to justify what it is and the absurd level of its cost. If F1 raced at IMS, one of the two series would get embarrassed.

Faster? That is a function of acceleration, braking, and cornering. At what is basically a constant speed race, acceleration and braking are nullified. In fact I suspect the DW12 possess more torque at that speed range. Cornering comes down to mechanical grip and aerodynamics. Although the DW12 may not have the sophisticated aero of a Formula One car, it's larger diffuser and the ability to select a wing package pretty well nullifies that advantage too.

The DW12 is a fast car, please do not assume that just because "It is not Formula One" that it is significantly lesser.

Formula One has not failed at it's "goal" because it still can accelerate, brake, and corner quicker than anything on a road course. But this is not a road course.

Hence why they would need a highly specific aero kit for the ovals.

I understand the differences of oval racing, and I'm not implying the current Indy car is slow. But Formula 1 is all about being the fastest open wheeled racing in the world; that is the point of F1. They don't race on ovals, so it doesn't matter if they're quick on them. But if F1 raced on ovals, they would need to be demonstrably quicker than Indy cars, or they would lose face. If F1 raced on an oval and was slower (or even just not faster) than anything else, it would have failed, pure and simple.

I don't think that Indy fans should be offended by that statement, honestly. An Indy car costs about 1/100 what a top F1 machine does, it runs a manufacturer supplied aero kit, it has a less powerful engine, no electric assist to the turbo - the list goes on. It's a perfectly good racing car, but an F1 car needs to be faster than anything else to justify what it is and the absurd level of its cost. If F1 raced at IMS, one of the two series would get embarrassed.

Thus why I thought of bringing back the us 500 st Michigan. It does not directly compare to a Indy car.

Also. Going back. If it's banking that may be a problem. There is pocano you can go too. That a a very limited banked tri ovalAnd although I did think about Bristol. I thought a half mile would be too small.

And on the tyre situation of 2005 Indy was 1 big fustercluck from michellin and I would like to think Pirelli would not make that mistake

I honestly don't think there would be too much more money in aero kits as well as formula 1 has different aero kits for whatever race they go to anyway.

And on the point of a crash structure if formula 1. Isn't it pretty strong as it is. And the introduction of the much hated halo will also help. The safter barriers will also go along way in helping.

Indycar does ovals, NASCAR does ovals, what can Formula One do on any oval that would separate itself from those two series? IMO for most US viewers, there is very little distinction between Indycar and Formula One.

So for Formula One to be distinct and draw in a crowd, what can they do that pulls in fans? It must be very different than what Indycar does, and it must make a big splash. Let me know when you can figure that out. And no, just because it's labelled "Formula One", that doesn't have much market appeal.

Technically, Formula One cars are not designed for or suited to ovals. There are such issues as sustained full throttle and crashworthness would require basically a brand new design and car.

But if an oval track is to be selected, I cast my vote for Bristol. Not a huge oval, but a bullring.

I would love to see F1 on an oval. I know some people stick their noses up at ovals as a simplistic thing that's for 'Murica! But I enjoy watching things like the Indy500 when they're on, its a different kettle of fish which I'm sure the teams and drivers would enjoy tackling.

....and never the twain shall meet. It is a completely different ethos both on the track and in the crowd. If F1 teams wanted to do ovals, I'm sure they would. I just hope they never use the same cars and drivers. Not being derogatory to oval attendees, but how would they have reacted at say old Spa?. Not only can you not see all the cars all the time, but you do not see any for 2 min or more. F1 simmers all the time with things going on only the climax is sunday. To be watching them on an oval seems wrong, like opening the curtains on Xmas eve and watching the sky.

It is like a heavy metal fan going to a chamber music recital, And long live the difference.

And on the tyre situation of 2005 Indy was 1 big fustercluck from michellin and I would like to think Pirelli would not make that mistake

Pirelli has been a fustercluck from the first time they put F1 Rubber to the track - not Pirelli's fault but the FIA mandate.

Agree with you on the first point but not on the second. AFAIAA the FIA mandate was to make tyres that would degrade quickly, not ones that made the drivers feel like they were driving on "greasy eggs," as Schumacher once famously said. Pirelli have been a disaster from day one as far as I'm concerned

....and never the twain shall meet. It is a completely different ethos both on the track and in the crowd. If F1 teams wanted to do ovals, I'm sure they would. I just hope they never use the same cars and drivers. Not being derogatory to oval attendees, but how would they have reacted at say old Spa?. Not only can you not see all the cars all the time, but you do not see any for 2 min or more. F1 simmers all the time with things going on only the climax is sunday. To be watching them on an oval seems wrong, like opening the curtains on Xmas eve and watching the sky.

It is like a heavy metal fan going to a chamber music recital, And long live the difference.

There are many people who can appreciate more than one type of racing or music.

Doesn't mean that I want see F1 doing ovals but it silly to act as if fans of an oval series can't enjoy road racing and vice versa.

....and never the twain shall meet. It is a completely different ethos both on the track and in the crowd. If F1 teams wanted to do ovals, I'm sure they would. I just hope they never use the same cars and drivers. Not being derogatory to oval attendees, but how would they have reacted at say old Spa?. Not only can you not see all the cars all the time, but you do not see any for 2 min or more. F1 simmers all the time with things going on only the climax is sunday. To be watching them on an oval seems wrong, like opening the curtains on Xmas eve and watching the sky.

It is like a heavy metal fan going to a chamber music recital, And long live the difference.

There are many people who can appreciate more than one type of racing or music.

Doesn't mean that I want see F1 doing ovals but it silly to act as if fans of an oval series can't enjoy road racing and vice versa.

This is partly the point I make. They are different, why cross them over. I am not saying oval or dead metal fans wil not enjoy chamber music, just not in the same venue with the same instruments. One is for the occasion, the other for the (I really can not think of a term to use here without grinding someone )

I was about to jump in here and suggest Bristol, but Blinky best me to it.The other track that springs to mind for me is Phoenix. It has shallow banking, and would be awesome to see an F1 car fly around there.

Tried to upload some Google Image photos, but was struggling on my phone

This would probably end up as shades of the 2005 US Grand Prix where all but six of the cars pulled into the pits at the end of the formation lap and refused to race. The culprit in that case was tires that would not handle one of the turns on the Indy oval. Running turn one backwards was causing tire failures. Running a full race distance on all four corners of the oval would lead to any number of unanticipated failures, and probably significant injuries on cars that aren't designed for that style of racing.

As to Michigan, the Champ Cars ran at around 235 MPH around there in oval trim. The F1 cars would also need to have their wings and aero packages massively redesigned to keep the downforce and speeds down.

I would think that most US F1 fans would balk at attending a F1 race in the US at an oval.

Wasn't it due to the fact that the tarmac had diamond cut grooves that was causing the failure?

Bridgestones were fine as they had plenty of data from Firestone about this.

I did this a few months back, just to see what happened. It was fun, and not easy. And if I had begun to tune the car to this track by removing downforce and suspension geometry changes, that would be a wild ride.

Faster? That is a function of acceleration, braking, and cornering. At what is basically a constant speed race, acceleration and braking are nullified. In fact I suspect the DW12 possess more torque at that speed range. Cornering comes down to mechanical grip and aerodynamics. Although the DW12 may not have the sophisticated aero of a Formula One car, it's larger diffuser and the ability to select a wing package pretty well nullifies that advantage too.

The DW12 is a fast car, please do not assume that just because "It is not Formula One" that it is significantly lesser.

Formula One has not failed at it's "goal" because it still can accelerate, brake, and corner quicker than anything on a road course. But this is not a road course.

Hence why they would need a highly specific aero kit for the ovals.

I understand the differences of oval racing, and I'm not implying the current Indy car is slow. But Formula 1 is all about being the fastest open wheeled racing in the world; that is the point of F1. They don't race on ovals, so it doesn't matter if they're quick on them. But if F1 raced on ovals, they would need to be demonstrably quicker than Indy cars, or they would lose face. If F1 raced on an oval and was slower (or even just not faster) than anything else, it would have failed, pure and simple.

I don't think that Indy fans should be offended by that statement, honestly. An Indy car costs about 1/100 what a top F1 machine does, it runs a manufacturer supplied aero kit, it has a less powerful engine, no electric assist to the turbo - the list goes on. It's a perfectly good racing car, but an F1 car needs to be faster than anything else to justify what it is and the absurd level of its cost. If F1 raced at IMS, one of the two series would get embarrassed.

It depends on one's definition of FASTEST doesn't it? I don't know that F1 has ever been the fastest open wheel cars in the world. Fastest on a road course, no question. However one can easily make the claim that INDYcars have almost always been faster when one takes into account the fastest laps during a race. Yes, they have done it on ovals, but the part in bold above does not allow for road course only, it is a blanket statement that F1 cars are the fastest open wheel racing cars in the world, and THAT can be argued. And as this thread is about F1 cars racing on ovals, my point is quite valid. In 1996. Eddie Cheever on lap 3 of the race (not qualifying) ran 236.102mph (379.97kmh). More recently, the Indy cars have run in the 226 mph range.

I am not saying that F1 cars cannot be engineered to run at those speeds, but we, being F1 oriented, need to allow for, and show respect to, other disciplines. For an F1 car to be set up for extreme oval racing, it would cease to be an F1 car as we know it. There is a reason why INDYcars are built as they are and it is not entirely due to the lower cost factor. They are designed from the ground up for their purpose, just as F1 cars are... but the purposes are quite different, hence, the cars are different.

I don't see F1 choosing to race on ovals, why should they? Should they show up at an American oval for a race, it might give them some exposure, but I don't see it resulting in any kind of significant shift of fan bases from Indy car to F1. It would be a curiosity at best, regardless of the oval chosen. Another consideration... many of the current F1 drivers might not be in the least interested in racing on an oval, especially a very fast oval such as Indy, Pocono or such.

P.S.An NHRA Top Fuel drag car (also Open Wheeled) this year ran over 338mph in 4.48 seconds. if one wants to use "jet" engine cars, it is likely higher yet. The point is... blanket statements that F1 are the fastest open wheel cars in the world, is only true if "fastest" is defined to fit the F1 model.

I don't think that Indy fans should be offended by that statement, honestly. An Indy car costs about 1/100 what a top F1 machine does, it runs a manufacturer supplied aero kit, it has a less powerful engine, no electric assist to the turbo - the list goes on. It's a perfectly good racing car, but an F1 car needs to be faster than anything else to justify what it is and the absurd level of its cost. If F1 raced at IMS, one of the two series would get embarrassed.

It depends on one's definition of FASTEST doesn't it? I don't know that F1 has ever been the fastest open wheel cars in the world. Fastest on a road course, no question. However one can easily make the claim that INDYcars have almost always been faster when one takes into account the fastest laps during a race. Yes, they have done it on ovals, but the part in bold above does not allow for road course only, it is a blanket statement that F1 cars are the fastest open wheel racing cars in the world, and THAT can be argued. And as this thread is about F1 cars racing on ovals, my point is quite valid. In 1996. Eddie Cheever on lap 3 of the race (not qualifying) ran 236.102mph (379.97kmh). More recently, the Indy cars have run in the 226 mph range.

I am not saying that F1 cars cannot be engineered to run at those speeds, but we, being F1 oriented, need to allow for, and show respect to, other disciplines. For an F1 car to be set up for extreme oval racing, it would cease to be an F1 car as we know it. There is a reason why INDYcars are built as they are and it is not entirely due to the lower cost factor. They are designed from the ground up for their purpose, just as F1 cars are... but the purposes are quite different, hence, the cars are different.

I don't see F1 choosing to race on ovals, why should they? Should they show up at an American oval for a race, it might give them some exposure, but I don't see it resulting in any kind of significant shift of fan bases from Indy car to F1. It would be a curiosity at best, regardless of the oval chosen. Another consideration... many of the current F1 drivers might not be in the least interested in racing on an oval, especially a very fast oval such as Indy, Pocono or such.

P.S.An NHRA Top Fuel drag car (also Open Wheeled) this year ran over 338mph in 4.48 seconds. if one wants to use "jet" engine cars, it is likely higher yet. The point is... blanket statements that F1 are the fastest open wheel cars in the world, is only true if "fastest" is defined to fit the F1 model.

I knew some Indy fans would be offended by it anyway, but I stick by what I said. An F1 car can never run on the same track as any other kind of car and be slower without losing some of its aura and prestige. F1 does not run on ovals, so they're not slower than IndyCars on ovals. I think it's best if it's kept that way, for the sake of both. It is vitally important for what F1 is for it to be a clear step faster than any comparable type of racing, and if F1 ran on an oval then IndyCar would become a comparable type.

And yes, I very much do consider lap/course time to be the test of 'fastest' in any form of racing. On an oval your top speed is highly significant to your lap time, and in a drag race it almost is your lap time, but I would not consider an IndyCar that was set up to go 240 on the straights but averaged 230 over a lap to be quicker than one that went 231 around the whole lap. The defined challenge is to finish the race in the shortest time first, and within that to finish the lap in the shortest time. I realize that a lot of American motorsports like to convert lap time into average speed, but I personally don't like that tradition; an average speed is always somewhat misleading, even on an oval, and it's just determined by taking distance divided by time anyway.

Offended???You made a blatant statement that is not true and I pointed it the reason why it was false. You can play all the word games you wish, but without qualifying your claim with limiting parameters to fit the F1 model, you open the door to challenge... period.

Offended???You made a blatant statement that is not true and I pointed it the reason why it was false. You can play all the word games you wish, but without qualifying your claim with limiting parameters to fit the F1 model, you open the door to challenge... period.

Well, you seemed offended. But I'll admit I honestly didn't think I had to qualify it, because I didn't think anyone would actually think of top speed as being more important than lap time. It's not, even in oval racing. It's not anywhere; there's a reason at drag racing strips they post X.XX seconds @ XXX.XX mph - the seconds is the one that wins you the race, not the speed.

But fine; an F1 car must be the quickest to lap any circuit - meaning by which posting the shortest lap time - it is put on to maintain its credibility. Do you prefer that?

As far as maintaining the Formula One ego trip, that was crushed decades ago. At one time, in the form of Shadow, owned by Don Nichols, were competing in both Formula One and Can Am. To answer the question, Don had a race pitting his Formula One cars versus his Can Am cars. Can Am won.

And at one time, CART was becoming a serious challenge to Formula One when they went overseas and competed at places like Surfer's Paradise. Formula One responded with a hissy fit.

And how does one assess the validity of any racing series? I understand that Formula One fans drag out the "we are the fastest" (a technically incorrect statement, they are the quickest) but in many other areas Formula One is an embarrassing failure. It is not a viable business model, the money spent is disproportionate to the return, and the actual racing in the form of entertainment is severely lacking.

Almost everything in Indycar is designed around the series being affordable. For that sole reason Indycar beats Formula One as a business model. And when one does the apples and oranges comparison, of course a Formula One car will beat an Indycar in being quick around a road course. The DW12 is a spec car, the engines are detuned to survive, whereas a Formula One car is a black hole that consumes money and resources.

I can name a racing series that delivers amazing action on track, Moto GP. I can name a racing series that is financially sane, that is Indycar. I can name a racing series that is quicker, that is NHRA. I can name a series where the fans are more devoted and rabid than the Tifosi, that is NASCAR.

Formula One is also severely lacking in it's inability to deliver based on it's exposure. And that is evident with Liberty, who are in the process of overhauling the entire sport. There is an old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

So please, let's park the egos at the door, Formula One's position is indefensible.

In summation, for the last race of the Indycar season I set my schedule to make sure I watched that race. For the final race in Formula One this coming weekend, this lifetime (since the mid-60's), dedicated fan may or may not watch, and may or may not DVR the race because ..... why?

To be fair, though, I don't think anyone is saying that F1 is better, just that its purpose is to be the fastest series on the planet. The discussion appears to have veered off into a competition between the two, but I don't think that was the intention.

As far as maintaining the Formula One ego trip, that was crushed decades ago. At one time, in the form of Shadow, owned by Don Nichols, were competing in both Formula One and Can Am. To answer the question, Don had a race pitting his Formula One cars versus his Can Am cars. Can Am won.

Which year was that? I've never heard of it, and the only reference I could find was this Motorsport article, claiming that the F1 car won:

"Another Shadow exclusive was the F1 vs Can-Am race at Laguna Seca with James Hunt and Jarier in the single-seaters, Oliver and Follmer in the Can-Am's. Jarier won. UOP loved it, but already the US arm of the team had switched its attention to F5000, where they scored some success with Oliver. However ,Jackie's interest in driving hard had dissipated along with Can-Am. His mind was fixed firmly on sponsor-hunting for Shadow's F1 team which was still run by Nichols, and which still had Southgate as its designer."

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

I can name a racing series that delivers amazing action on track, Moto GP. I can name a racing series that is financially sane, that is Indycar. I can name a racing series that is quicker, that is NHRA. I can name a series where the fans are more devoted and rabid than the Tifosi, that is NASCAR.

The first one is subjective. The second one is true. The third is totally irrelevant.I think the fourth is categorically false.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

Formula One is also severely lacking in it's inability to deliver based on it's exposure. And that is evident with Liberty, who are in the process of overhauling the entire sport. There is an old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, right now, F1 is a superior product to NASCAR or IndyCar because I'm interested in the technical development. To you, if what you care about most is the on-track action, that might be false. But it's not something you can go around claiming as an objective fact.

Just to make this clear for everyone, since apparently it isn't: I'm not claiming that F1 is necessarily better than IndyCar. But I am saying that the premise of F1, on which it is marketed and based, is that it is the fastest (or quickest, if you insist) single-seater series in the world. If F1 raced on an oval, it would need to be quicker than IndyCar to not look silly. I don't think F1 would necessarily be quicker, and that's not what I'm claiming. But if they did race on ovals, they would need to be quicker to justify doing so. If a $100m F1 machine goes up against a $1m IndyCar, the F1 car needs to win to maintain the credibility of the series.

That's it. I'm not trying to address the question of whether F1 could build a car to be quicker on ovals than an IndyCar; it's not relevant. I am simply saying that if they were to race on ovals, they would need to be confident of being able to do so.

Formula One is also severely lacking in it's inability to deliver based on it's exposure. And that is evident with Liberty, who are in the process of overhauling the entire sport. There is an old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, right now, F1 is a superior product to NASCAR or IndyCar because I'm interested in the technical development. To you, if what you care about most is the on-track action, that might be false. But it's not something you can go around claiming as an objective fact.

I love technology, I am a tech geek. But I see absolutely nothing in Formula One that can be identified as technical development. The NASA PRSEUS is technical development. The 3d printed compressor inlet temperature sensor for the GE gas turbine is technical development. Formula One is just re-purposing existing technologies and making them work.

And really, Formula One is a racing series. It is not a demonstration of technical development. That is just advertising blabber by the factories to mask the fact that for them, it is all just an exercise in advertising.

If you really want to watch technical development, go to the airport and watch the airliners take off. They are high tech, they are on the forefront of development.

The only real trouble on many US circuits would be adding garages attached to the pits. Hence, Austin built to suit. A city circuit more easily amended vs the autodrome arenas of Nascar (tri)ovals. Sonoma, Watkins Glen, Sebring and Daytona have all been scoped out for F1 use. Some of the road courses would need more than just garages but also curbing, rails and run off areas. Look at the mess that would happen a turn 1 of the Daytona road course and all the guard rails in the infield. Turning on to the Daytona banking exiting #6 no real issue, honest but #5 would become a junk yard (imo but at least easy removal of twisted oopsies). St Pete already set up for an event, as would be Sebring or even Atlanta or even Road America but again garage issues on a lot of US tracks.

You can't do ovals for F1 though. The cars can barely follow each other as it is. They keep having to find clean air and can't pass. There's absolutely no way this iteration of car could race on an oval.

No, just no. The thing that makes F-1 great is the multiple turns in different directions, it takes a different level of driver. If I want to see open wheel racing on an oval (I don't), I'd just watch the Indy 500.